Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 26, 2014 1:00am-1:31am PDT

1:00 am
clients home. fundamentally the orientation is east, west so the back of the homelands on significant avenue we see full sun in the morning and by the early afternoon that's shaded. i don't know what this photo was taken but the impact the shod is minimal for all the buildings on the west side of the block. this will be foster out than the proposed project. as mentioned we are only adding two feet horizontally and still provides 8 photo more than the rear yard open space. >> sorry ma'am, your time is up.
1:01 am
>> okay. are there members of the public that are in support of the project? >> good afternoon. madam president and members of the planning commission i'm joy i'm speaking on behalf of the owner on sixth avenue. i want to reiterate >> i'm sorry ma'am, if you're speaking n in support of the iernz i'm speaking in support of the project. i've known them for 26 years. they've helped with the medical center and as a physician that has helped with the medical education and plays has been a soccer coach and president of
1:02 am
the san francisco vikings and he's been a coach over 17 years. they've afforded an enormous amount of time and energy there's the recognition of the need to encourage families to stay in the city. this house is at least one hundred-year-old and noted to be brought up to code for this family and the neighbors. there's been serious fires in the city and it impacts neighbors as well as the inhablt. in addition, this will recognize as the family grows up they need more space the rent are high here. they're ready to do the work and
1:03 am
make changes in the property it will help the value of the houses in the neighborhood. it benefits the neighbors and the parking is extremely tight in the inner sunset before it changes to the north line. in conclusion you've followed the process and the folks have been accommodating but it seems like every time they make concessions the rules changed. it's code compliant and will benefit the family and the neighboring properties but improves the basic housing stock in the city. i urge to you approve this >> thank you is there any
1:04 am
additional public comment in port of the project. >> i'm slel will i. clay and andrea are good citizens wanting to make improvements in the home they've lived in for 26 years they've raised their daughters and look forward to the mind in the future when in-laws and grandchildren that part of their world. andrea and her husband are going to stay in the home and the probability need of some aspect of multiple generational care in the homes. parents need to care for parent and kids need to care for the generations. this home upgrade is part of putting things in place for the
1:05 am
future. clay and andrea are part of the future community. andrea has been with usf medical center for years she's teaches and clay is a volunteer with the vikings soccer lead that partners with the rec and park department. these are good reasonable people. their home needs upgrades and need to be brought up to code it needs seismic and structural and cosmetic changes. they live in a modest home and they're making changes that are absolutely necessary. please consider this proposal. thank you very much. thank you >> additional members of the public that wish to speak in
1:06 am
support of the project? >> thank you for your attention i'm katherine i've lived in the house in the neighborhood over 33 years. i have been friend with the folks for most of the time. i'd like to support the project and ask you dismiss the discretionary review application. we actually worked on a project with the our architect leslie in our neighborhood. i find here very consider at person to respond to the neighbors they've made a number of changes of concerns to the neighborhoods and they've been reprehensive to the project responses. they're adding value to the neighborhood and to the community and adding parking
1:07 am
spaces and making it more incur efficient and seismicly appropriate. i'm to request our support for the application as it stands for the project. thank you very much >> additional speakers? okay. seeing none dr requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> good afternoon. i'm julie living on 6th avenue. i want to point out i'm a professional musician have worked with the san francisco opera and ballet since 1987 i work in the dark for many hours it's crucial for me to have light when i come home we've preserved the light in our home with the remodel we're only
1:08 am
asking the consideration of the our neighbors to help with that. as far as our efforts to negotiate we've hired on architect that's brought proposals that have basically been go forward. i have a couple of drawings. an example of the slopped revolver that will preferential light >> ma'am, if you want to leave time for your co- dr requester she'll only have a few minutes. >> you can see it out buildings are not visible from the living level. thank you
1:09 am
>> we'll have abbreviate this. i lived in my home since i was born. i've watched the neighborhood there are 7 remodels mine included in our bloke and of the 7 not one has gone more than one to the past the orange structure at the time of the remodel. we've enclosed the bottoms some people added a new deck but it's preserved the openness in our block. as far as as everybody trying to accommodate everybody i've been sporadic excluded and i was not
1:10 am
to be included so my desires have not been made known at all or considered >> i'm sorry ma'am, your time is up. >> project sponsor you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i would also like to clarify that andrea and clay have tried to contact and give their input. >> what did he say? okay >> please don't interrupt ma'am, speak into the microphone. >> this is the site plan i want to emphasize it is the existing and property so this area is the only space we're adding onto the back of the house. along the direct requesters
1:11 am
property we've extend it two photo and the bay window is set back from the property line 3 photo. at the third level we've set back the master by the time 9 feet from the requesters property to give them a view and we've set back for more light on both sides of the property. i think you can see it a little bit better this is where we're stepped back 9 feet and after the preapplication community meeting we listened to the neighbors concerned and pulled that back four and a half feet and moved the bay in the back.
1:12 am
and this is the 311 notice for the project. i just put it her to emphasize not commissioners under the proposed it says 2 feet >> i'm sorry your 7, 8, 9 is up. that's the close of the public hearing. commissioner moore >> while i think the concerns about light and air with issues we talk about almost every week within itself not the criteria for approving or disapproving the dr. while we are sensitive to be sensitivity have those revolted this this case the addition is so minor that i did not building that any of the considerations
1:13 am
to consider this roement do apply. the allegations are sensitive just as the architect described are showing the red lined areas of the conflict as they've been resolved with working with the neighborhoods and departments this is a sensitive edition i don't feel requires dr but way within the modest editions in san francisco that's not only this building what's troubling with your issues with the remaining 6 hundred and 50 thousand people that live in the city we hear the same story every week, we looked at this with a skilled eye but take them to a general willed area.
1:14 am
this edition is modest and way within the conditions of approval i move to approve the project without taking discretionary review >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. a few of the paralyzes i found in staff please correct me if i am wrong but looking at the plans on a 5. you can clearly see that that 9 foot set back exists for the master bedroom on the third floor where respect to the neighborhood to the north which is where the dr has been filed and most of the concerns about light and air are coming. also a setback of the master bedroom they've mentioned and 4 feet from the rear there recent
1:15 am
- is a setback. the measurement of the before and after situations it's not 49 inches it's a two foot edition. much of what was there was in the 70s. admittedly those pop outs were not uniform and the project sponsors have filled those in they have no effective because the fill ins are in between the pop outs they're trying to put in a solid foundation and make the house sturdy so it seems like in the issue of rear yard. according to staff report they're to have a 25 percent and
1:16 am
the rear yard was 34 percent that's well within allowed and looking at the overhead views there's significant space even after the edition i don't see anything extraordinary with this case. i agree with the commissioners then to test of the analysis of the design team and the guidance >> commissioners there a motion and second on the floor to not take dr. commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. commissioner fong. commissioner president wu >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero and places you on item 17 for the next case. at the 12457 request for discretionary review.
1:17 am
>> good afternoon tucht and commissioners doug with the staff you have a request for a discretionary review the application to construct a new small space on the first story and a 50 feet third floor to the dwelling it will have a walk-in closet and others amenities it's within the west invades but a distance between a neighborhood district and the west portal district. the subject block includes 8 properties between 14 and forest
1:18 am
avenues and the subject property is within a group of buildings that have similar north side of particularly at the street level and it is an edition this is a set back accident feet and it is proposed that this will not make it subordinate to the remain guidelines for the department recommends a setback that will minute miss it visibility and maintain the wall open this block. the existing roof will conceal the roof and therefore will not stand out. the sponsor has said this is unreasonable because it will
1:19 am
increase the construction cost and reduce the value of all neighborhoods that point similar editions. the department buildings that more the edition will be visible from the sidewalk across the street from which it the measured and evaluated. at this distance it will not be subordinate and in this third floor edition will include a full bath and office and walk-in closet and a second family room. the recommendation to this will reduce the floor area by one hundred pea 50 square feet and will still provide to square feet to the building which is an increase of '85 percent. the department has received one
1:20 am
letter of opposition stating the height open space and impact his properties afternoon light. the staff has met with the adjacent owners which the property is to the west and they express the concern the vertical and horizontal edition of the afternoon light. the commission take the discretionary review and approve the edition so it is set back from the wall 15 feet that concludes my presentation >> we take public comment no support of the dr. >> who's the project sponsor. >> hi good afternoon, commissioners i'm james i live
1:21 am
next to the project. i'm here to support of the discretionary refugee building that the house frontage in this neighborhood really changes the look and feel of the two-story houses. i support the planning proposal for the set back to 15 feet to the zero lot lion sorry houses. when a house in the middle of the block sticks up i know it's, it's very visible and having a 15 foot set back relieves the disparity. furthermore we have the project has plans to expand the ground floor in the book 7 feet and add another basement level 3 photo.
1:22 am
because we're at the corner there are a lot of 3 story buildings directly west of us. it lines up with the project that opens us to the east and allows the sun. we feel this didn't combofrp but they're adding 10 and a half feet. so this is a view from the basic from our back. and so say you, see this is looking east and this is the morning sun coming in the shed that sticks out 10 foot or so and they're proposing adding in the back this shed we have this whole wall with the proposal. and this would really box us in
1:23 am
since we're at the corner as shown in the aerial view. this is property of them and this walls us in we're in a box. we're not here to regret the project but asking for conditions. we want the overall of the blocks we want to be considered. this is not effecting the project in a measurable degree but helps the neighbors >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, project team our team has 5 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm allen the architect for the project at
1:24 am
the 1257 willow street we've been trying to work with the planning department for the last 2 years from the beginning we felt our edition which thirds are hidden behind the roof would not present itself as an overbearing or out of place type of edition for a third story. i've done renderings the edition the existing roof here >> can you speak into the microphone. >> beg your pardon. >> speak into the microphone. >> the edition sits 3 feet above the existing revolver line. at the corner of our block sits
1:25 am
a 3 story house which is at the front and back of all the homes and it's 3 stories at all. this was done back in the 70s. and both of those houses are single-family homes and we're not at the height of the three-story structure. cross the street from the 12 (inaudible). are 3 story homes. which were banishment acquit a while ago. the homes across the street from the corner of forest side were built in very much long ago their 3 stories and their front sets back and they go up 3
1:26 am
stories. to the west this home here - this home was built probably, maybe 20 or thirty years ago edition to the third story that doesn't have a setback and it's 43 at the front of the set back line that's typical for a lot of the homes in the west portal district. this is a picture of the two retains on the corner of 14th and the other street. my clients house is the fourth house. and this is the third house that the previous owner was speaking about. those are two roipdz that were
1:27 am
built by the same owner of the properties and their 3 stories at all. we're only barely halfway to the story of either of those residence. i really building this is not impact the scale of the neighborhood. pretty much the west portal district has a mix terror of one and two story homes but most of the older 3 story homes are not set back and have a lot of detail to make them look interesting or the partial setbacks but the west portal mass has a mixture. so with our proposed edition of the third story can sit back 9
1:28 am
photo we felt we shouldn't have to lose one hundred and 50 feet to our third story edition that's our family room. as far as the ground floor edition at the rear it's at the basement level. the picture that the neighbor was showing is at the second floor level our basement level edition is above that they'll never see the edition. the only protrudetion is the deck open the roof of the lower level based on the edition. where the edition at the rear is being built >> thank you other members in
1:29 am
support of the project sponsor? okay. seeing none i believe that's the end of the public hearing. >> i'm sorry they should be afforded the two minute rebuttal. so staff you have a two minute rebuttal >> staff wasn't sure we'll be provided the rebuttal but in response to those a minimum of the building will be visible. that provision was made on the very last page of your packet. at the sidewalk adjacent to the street and obviously at that angle and advantage point when the residential team looked at
1:30 am
the visibility we take a look at it from across the street and poub the street and given that standard have an tangible point. this was an issue the department tried to talk about early on. this has been before and after between the project sponsor and the department and initially the department had concerns that the rear edition was going to have a significant impact on light and privacy but after a bunch of reviews by the residential design team the department determined the impact was not substantial that he noticed there are some amount of